Smacking ban: Opponents call for review of controversial Scottish law six years after implementation

Campaigners against Scotland’s criminalising ‘smacking ban’ have called for a review of the legislation’s impact almost six years after it came into force.

In most instances, new laws are scrutinised three to five years after they come into force. And the Scottish Government has previously hinted it may need to commission a “research project” to fully assess the effect of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act.

The Christian Institute (CI) – the charity at the forefront of the Be Reasonable campaign against the law – has written to the Family Law Unit, part of the Justice Directorate of the Scottish Government.

In the letter, CI Deputy Director Simon Calvert states:

“This November will mark six years since the implementation of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act.

“As you have acknowledged: ‘Legislation is typically reviewed some years after it is passed as a matter of course’. Indeed, it is common for this post-legislative scrutiny to occur within three to five years of an Act’s implementation. 

“Yet, well over five years later, we are still no clearer on the impact of Scotland’s ‘smacking ban’ on parents, children and local authorities.

“It is regrettable that a requirement to review the Act’s impact was not written into the legislation. 

“We were therefore pleased that in August 2020 you identified ‘monitoring the impact of the legislation’ as one of the four overarching goals of the implementation group, indicating that this would be achieved through a research project:

‘Longer term, we may need to commission a research project. Legislation is typically reviewed some years after it is passed as a matter of course, and as such we may wish to commission research as part of this process.’ (emphasis added)

“Given this stated intention, it is difficult to see why this review has not yet been published.”

The letter also points out that a report has already been provided into similar legislation which came into force in Wales 16 months AFTER the Scottish Act.

Referring to the Welsh report, Mr Calvert adds:

“The report reveals a concerning impact on parents and local authorities in Wales, and exposes the social and financial strain created by the legislation, far exceeding what was originally forecast.

“This further demonstrates the need for a report examining the impact of the Scottish Act, as well as the importance of transparency in maintaining public trust.”

Mr Calvert cites Scottish Government evidence secured from stakeholder focus groups including Police Scotland and local authorities, and obtained through FOI responses, which suggest various areas of concern about the Scottish ban.

These include:

• that Government support was inadequate;

• that the instigation of criminal inquiries into parents “took precedence over welfare and protection”; and

• that resources have been stretched in order to meet the demands of the Act.

In 2019, before the Bill was approved, Mr Calvert said:

“Almost 90 percent of public submissions were against the proposal to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement and make smacking a criminal offence.”

“And a massive 97 per cent of submissions made by individual members of the public condemned the plan to criminalise mums and dads for smacking their kids.”

“The public and parents are massively against this latest intrusion into family life by those who want to impose their own parenting preferences on every home in Scotland.

“89 per cent of those who responded to the Parliament’s call for evidence said they opposed the Bill. This figure is broadly in line with ComRes polling showing three quarters of the Scottish public do not want smacking criminalised.

“The evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of Scots do not back this ban. … There are 614,000 families with dependent children in Scotland and many of these parents face the threat of being criminalised if this Bill goes through and they are found to have given their child a light smack. That’s chilling.”

In the conclusion of his letter, Mr Calvert calls upon the Government: “Could you please let us know when you intend to publish your report on the impact of the Act?”

ENDS